Debating should be treasured

Published: Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 4:17 p.m.

Last Modified: Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 4:17 p.m.

The exchange of competing ideas in a free marketplace of speech is an American treasure that should be held close to all our hearts.

While argument makes some people nervous or anxious, others find a strange calm from the art of persuasion, or the attempt to persuade.

So often, as an idea is discussed, I will offer a contrary viewpoint to the prevailing opinion just to stir up a good debate.

This is entertaining at home or at work.

Well, I should say it is entertaining to me. I'm not at all sure that my coworkers or the other members of my family enjoy the contrary nature of my personality as much as I do.

From time to time, believe it or not, I have had some negative comments about my argumentative ways. But it has also served me well professionally.

As the editor of the editorial page, I deal with arguments all the time. People have their say back and forth, and I enjoy being part of offering our local communities a high-profile, public space where these debates can take place.

For years, this page has been a place where differing opinions over, say, President Obama could be found competing with one another.

I don't know whether anyone is persuaded by these partisan pieces. I sometimes suspect that most of them are just preaching to the choir. This is particularly true of the more shrill opinion pieces — letters and columns.

Attacking the president for his supposed sins of being a Muslim or being a communist, for instance, is unlikely to sway anyone on the fence.

It is doubly unlikely to convince anyone who is on the other end of the political spectrum.

The same can be said of the liberal screeds that tend to focus on the predictable, partisan attacks on the GOP or Mitt Romney or Gov. Jindal, or whoever.

These competing and equally obnoxious world views are similar in one way: They aren't persuading or convincing anyone or changing any minds.

I was thinking about this earlier this week while discussing political issues with some Facebook friends.

A friend of mine had linked to an opinion piece by syndicated columnist Frank Rich. The column was an indictment of the Republican Party, which, Rich says, is the party of “deniers.” These deniers, Rich would have us believe, are the folks who debate global warming, the folks who don't agree with Keynesian economics and the folks who want to fight voter fraud.

Rich carefully chose the word “deniers” to describe those political adversaries with whom he disagrees.

I pointed this out on my friend's Facebook page and suggested that Rich's piece is extreme and rigidly partisan. The response I got proved my point. “How can you even question global warming?” was one of the responses. And they went on from there. One person said I was the equivalent of “slithering scumballs,” his words for Republicans.

It should be offensive to anyone who values debate and open exchanges of ideas for Rich to label dissenters from his opinions not as “mistaken” or even “wrong” but as “deniers.” In other words, they are lying about matters of fact, not simply expressing differing opinions.

Judging from the responses I evoked from my friend's friends, Rich is not alone.

I should point out that just because this exchange focused on liberal beliefs, the right-wingers are just as intolerant of differing opinions.

How did we get here, where our views are not matters for debate but fodder for personal attacks?

I don't know, but I can't help but think it's a change for the worse.

As our Washington politicians cling ever more fiercely to party over principle, the same thing is happening to the people in our personal lives, at least those with whom we interact on Facebook and other social media.

My questions are these: What do these people fear? Can their ideas and beliefs not stand up to questioning and debate? If they can, stop being so intolerant of dissent.

The shame of it all is that these partisan blowhards are the roughly 10 percent on either end of the political spectrum. Unfortunately, the 80 percent of us who are somewhere in between are stuck without shrill and obedient mouthpieces.

That's not so bad after all. I guess we're more likely to change minds than they are.

Editorial Page Editor Michael Gorman can be reached at 448-7612 or by e-mail at mike.gorman@dailycomet.com.

<p>Argument is a wonderful thing.</p><p>The exchange of competing ideas in a free marketplace of speech is an American treasure that should be held close to all our hearts.</p><p>While argument makes some people nervous or anxious, others find a strange calm from the art of persuasion, or the attempt to persuade.</p><p>So often, as an idea is discussed, I will offer a contrary viewpoint to the prevailing opinion just to stir up a good debate.</p><p>This is entertaining at home or at work.</p><p>Well, I should say it is entertaining to me. I'm not at all sure that my coworkers or the other members of my family enjoy the contrary nature of my personality as much as I do.</p><p>From time to time, believe it or not, I have had some negative comments about my argumentative ways. But it has also served me well professionally.</p><p>As the editor of the editorial page, I deal with arguments all the time. People have their say back and forth, and I enjoy being part of offering our local communities a high-profile, public space where these debates can take place.</p><p>For years, this page has been a place where differing opinions over, say, President Obama could be found competing with one another.</p><p>I don't know whether anyone is persuaded by these partisan pieces. I sometimes suspect that most of them are just preaching to the choir. This is particularly true of the more shrill opinion pieces — letters and columns.</p><p>Attacking the president for his supposed sins of being a Muslim or being a communist, for instance, is unlikely to sway anyone on the fence.</p><p>It is doubly unlikely to convince anyone who is on the other end of the political spectrum.</p><p>The same can be said of the liberal screeds that tend to focus on the predictable, partisan attacks on the GOP or Mitt Romney or Gov. Jindal, or whoever.</p><p>These competing and equally obnoxious world views are similar in one way: They aren't persuading or convincing anyone or changing any minds.</p><p>I was thinking about this earlier this week while discussing political issues with some Facebook friends.</p><p>A friend of mine had linked to an opinion piece by syndicated columnist Frank Rich. The column was an indictment of the Republican Party, which, Rich says, is the party of “deniers.” These deniers, Rich would have us believe, are the folks who debate global warming, the folks who don't agree with Keynesian economics and the folks who want to fight voter fraud.</p><p>Rich carefully chose the word “deniers” to describe those political adversaries with whom he disagrees.</p><p>I pointed this out on my friend's Facebook page and suggested that Rich's piece is extreme and rigidly partisan. The response I got proved my point. “How can you even question global warming?” was one of the responses. And they went on from there. One person said I was the equivalent of “slithering scumballs,” his words for Republicans.</p><p>It should be offensive to anyone who values debate and open exchanges of ideas for Rich to label dissenters from his opinions not as “mistaken” or even “wrong” but as “deniers.” In other words, they are lying about matters of fact, not simply expressing differing opinions.</p><p>Judging from the responses I evoked from my friend's friends, Rich is not alone.</p><p>I should point out that just because this exchange focused on liberal beliefs, the right-wingers are just as intolerant of differing opinions.</p><p>How did we get here, where our views are not matters for debate but fodder for personal attacks?</p><p>I don't know, but I can't help but think it's a change for the worse.</p><p>As our Washington politicians cling ever more fiercely to party over principle, the same thing is happening to the people in our personal lives, at least those with whom we interact on Facebook and other social media.</p><p>My questions are these: What do these people fear? Can their ideas and beliefs not stand up to questioning and debate? If they can, stop being so intolerant of dissent.</p><p>The shame of it all is that these partisan blowhards are the roughly 10 percent on either end of the political spectrum. Unfortunately, the 80 percent of us who are somewhere in between are stuck without shrill and obedient mouthpieces.</p><p>That's not so bad after all. I guess we're more likely to change minds than they are.</p><p>Editorial Page Editor Michael Gorman can be reached at 448-7612 or by e-mail at mike.gorman@dailycomet.com.</p>